JUDGMENT A.B. Palkar, J. - This petition is filed by the State against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nasik passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1990 on 3.0-6-1990. The appeal was filed against the order of confiscation passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest. (East). Forest Division, Nasik confiscating Maruti Van No. MZV 5795. 2. The aforesaid Maruti Van was found carrying Tiger's skin worth Rs. 45,000/- illegally and under the provisions of Indian Forest Act vehicle was intercepted on 10-7-1989 by the Police Officer on Nagpur-Bombay High way near Wadar Bhoi. 4 persons were found occupying the van. They were arrested and later on released on bail by the learned Magistrate when they were produced before the Magistrate. The Police Officers intimated the Forest Officers about the same and thereafter during the interrogation of the accused it was revealed that van belongs to the respondent and therefore, a show cause notice was issued under Section 61(B) to the respondent. After considering the reply given by the respondent that said van was given by him on 10-7-1989 to his friend and that he was unaware that it was carrying tiger's skin the Assistant Conservator of Forest confiscated the van under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik. The learned Sessions Judge directed the return of said vehicle to the respondent on furnishing solvent security of Rs. 75.000/- to the satisfaction of the Magistrate and also on giving an undertaking that he will produce the said vehicle as and when directed by the Court during the course of trial. 3. In this Court the respondent did not appear even though he was served. I have heard the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Thakur. Mr. Thakur brought to my notice the provisions of Sections 61-A to 61-G of the Indian Forest Act, and contended that although appeal is provided for under Section 61-D against the order of confiscation passed under Section 61-A or 61-C. the learned additional Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the provisions of Section 55 of Indian Forest Act as amended. Section 55 sub-section (1) is as follows: "55. Forest produce, tools, etc. Section 55 sub-section (1) is as follows: "55. Forest produce, tools, etc. while liable to forfeiture - (1) All timber of forest produce which is not the property of Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any forest offence shall subject to Section 61-G be liable by order of the convicting Court to forfeiture. Thus any vehicle used for committing of forest offence is liable to forfeiture. However, this is subject to Section 61G. Section 61-G is as follows: "61G. Whenever any timber, sandalwood fire wood charcoal or any other notified forest produce which is the property of the State Government together with any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle used in committing any offence is seized under Sub-section (1) of Section 52, the authorised officer under Section 61-A, or the officer specially empowered under Section 61-C or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 61-D shall have and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force any other Officer Court. Tribunal or Authority shall not have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the custody possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property and any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle." A simple reading of Section 61-G would show that the jurisdiction of the Court trying the offence or any other Court is barred as regards forest produce or vehicle seized under Sub-section (1) of Section 52 or Section 61-A or 61-C. Thus the question of returning the vehicle pending the trial was not before the Sessions Judge. The proceedings of confiscation are independent and against the order appeal is provided to the Sessions Judge. The order passed in confiscation proceedings is not subject to the provisions of powers of the Magistrate trying the case under Criminal Procedure Code. A reading of Section 61-G would go to show that provisions therein are having effect not with standing anything to the contrary contained in the Act or in .the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force. 4. A reading of Section 61-G would go to show that provisions therein are having effect not with standing anything to the contrary contained in the Act or in .the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force. 4. According to Section 61-A the Forest Officer is required to produce the property including the vehicle before the officer authorised by the Government and such officer is empowered to confiscate the property under Section 61-A.Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 61-A clearly show that the property or vehicle can be confiscated irrespective of the institution of any proceedings. Proviso to Section 61-B specifically lays down that no order of confiscation of the motor vehicle shall be made except after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof if in the opinion of the authorised officer it is practicable to do so, and after considering his objections, if any. 5. In this Court as record of the petition did not show whether a notice was given to the registered owner. I called upon the Addl. P.P. to produce the record and the record was therefore, produced by the Forest Officer and xerox copies of the relevant documents are retained. It is clear from the record produced that notice was given to the person in whose name the vehicle was registered. The said person viz. Pravin Bhimrao Sakarde informed the officer in writing that he has sold the vehicle to the present respondent. He has also sent an affidavit and the present respondent also filed an affidavit that he has purchased the said vehicle. When the present respondent who filed the appeal to the Sessions Court against the order of confiscation was called upon to show cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated he stated the vehicle was given by him to one of his friend but did not disclose the name to the friend. When the present respondent who filed the appeal to the Sessions Court against the order of confiscation was called upon to show cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated he stated the vehicle was given by him to one of his friend but did not disclose the name to the friend. He also could not disclose the name of the other 2 persons who were in the car and in fact this should have put the learned Sessions Judge on guard to view the matter with more circumspection but the learned Sessions Judge has observed that merely because the respondent who is simply owner of the van did not give the name of his friend or the names of persons who were in the car it cannot be said that the respondent had connived at or had knowledge that particular contraband articles were being carried or transported from the vehicle. In my view the respondent may not have any knowledge but his connivance is obvious otherwise he ought to have disclosed at least the name of the friend to whom he had handed over the said Maruti van. Maruti van is not such a thing that one would not remember the name of friend to whom it was handed over for a specific purpose and period and this conduct of the respondent was sufficient to create suspicion in the mind of the officer who had specifically given notice to the respondent to show cause why the vehicle. i.e. Maruti van should not be confiscated. Taking a contrary view would mean that anybody can allow his vehicle to be used for such illegal purpose and can later on get it back from the Authority under Forest Act or in appeal from the Court of Sessions by showing ignorance regarding the name of person to whom he had given it and in this manner the vehicle owners can afford to allow the vehicle to be used for such illegal transport of forest goods which is an offence under the Indian Forest Act. Moreover, as already pointed out there was no question of returning the property on bond inasmuch as in the criminal case the learned Magistrate before whom the case was to be tried could not have passed any order in respect of the goods i.e. forest goods or the vehicle. Moreover, as already pointed out there was no question of returning the property on bond inasmuch as in the criminal case the learned Magistrate before whom the case was to be tried could not have passed any order in respect of the goods i.e. forest goods or the vehicle. The proceedings of confiscation are independent and it is against the order of confiscation that the appeal is provided to the Sessions Court. When the Deputy Conservator of Forest was justified in confiscating the articles inasmuch as the respondent had failed to disclose even the name of person to whom he handed over the vehicle the learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in passing the impugned order. 6. Therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Nasik in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1990 on 30-6-1990 is set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Nasik is restored. The Assistant Conservator of Forest Nasik is at liberty to take further steps for confiscation of the van or recovery of the amount of bond executed by the respondent. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. (ARTICLE) 1998 (3) Crimes 183 BAIL - A CONUNDRUM (M.B. Sardar, Advocate, Bhuj Kachchh, 370001) Especially of late law of bails has been a puzzle and a nightmare for the lawyer and litigants alike. It has always moved like Chancellor's foot and in the process the evolution of the law of bails has crucified to the extent that many a time the innocents have to undergo premature, unwanted 'and unwarranted imprisonment despite they are absolutely innocent and, many a times, to the knowledge 'of the Hon'ble Judges deciding the bail applications. Glaring injustice is caused to the 'persons who have acted within periphery, precincts and parameters of their rights and they are refused bail because they are told to remain in the prison till the trial is over and they vindicate their rights during the trial and get acquitted. Such is not the position principle and perception of law of bail and judiciary lacks courage to give due justice to the innocents and compels them to wait till they undergo the grinding wheels of the trial after a long waiting period. The anomaly gets expose when we scratch the surface and visualise the reality which is often over looked for various reasons. The anomaly gets expose when we scratch the surface and visualise the reality which is often over looked for various reasons. Many a times knowingly and deliberately just not to release the accused on bail as the incident has created a public furore or the prosecution agencies are given succour and solace by justifying their illegal actions and to overlook their misdeeds, while deciding the bail applications. Such a course leads to the injustice to the innocents. The accused in fact in many cases are victims and yet they have to he in the prison because the law of bails has been misapplied misunderstood and misinterpreted. Simply because the police dubs the victim as the accused the judicial courts are prone to keep him in prison till the trial is over and then the accused gets a clean bill which was as apparent as day light from the day his bail application was heard and decide against him. Many judgments on bail are more sentimental and emotional rather than legal and those judgments go to the extent of dubbing the pseudo-accused as the most hated culprit on the surface, of the earth. What nasty epithets are not hurled at him? Invariably the police agency comes with an affidavit that the accused would jump the bail terrorise the witnesses and tamper with evidence which allegations are baseless and unsupported by any cogent reliable and acceptable reasons. And whereby the basic and fundamental presumption of innocence is jeopardised and the lower courts' are misled misdirected and misguided to a very great extent. It leads to great and irreparable injustice not only to the accused in that particular case but many others to follow suit Prima-facie case is not a magic formula. Prima Facie case is a case when the existing evidence as it stood then would be sufficient to bring about a conviction for the offences charged. It may be submitted that the case has to be looked as a whole and not from a slop sided view. The same set of facts when discloses from the same evidence acts favourable to the accused have to be considered and duly weighed and then the decision has to be taken whether the accused is fit to be granted bail or not. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court prima facie case means as below: AIR 1960 SC 1352 . The same set of facts when discloses from the same evidence acts favourable to the accused have to be considered and duly weighed and then the decision has to be taken whether the accused is fit to be granted bail or not. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court prima facie case means as below: AIR 1960 SC 1352 . "A 'Prima Facie case' does-not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence." In order to exemplify the paradox we may look into a case wherein the accused has killed the deceased in right of private defence and received serious injuries in the process. Such accused when applies for bail is refused bail firstly on the ground that the application is Premature and secondly that defence version inclusive of the right of private defence cannot be looked into at this stage. And thus he has to remain in the jail till his trial is over. Both the aforesaid grounds are fallacious and show lack judicious approach to the matter. So far as the first ground to refuse the bail is concerned saying that the bail application being Premature is misnomer and evasive ground to refuse bail. An application for bail in serious cases is filed after sufficient time gets passed and the most of the material investigation is over. 'The material evidence is already collected. Many a times emotional arguments are made saying that the funeral rites of the deceased are not yet over. Or there is tension prevailing in the area. No such ground can and should come in way of liberty of an innocent person who has been hauled up in the case. No doubt, every one will have sympathy for the departed soul but that would not be substitute for the innocent person being locked up. Or there is tension prevailing in the area. No such ground can and should come in way of liberty of an innocent person who has been hauled up in the case. No doubt, every one will have sympathy for the departed soul but that would not be substitute for the innocent person being locked up. Can all this be a genuine reason when the accused himself was a victim of the onslaught of the deceased and had acted in self-defence? To say that the right of self defence would be looked into at the time of trial would be no less than illegally depriving an innocent person of his liberty and no person, under such circumstances would have courage to act in self defence and the law of self defence would be dreaded by every citizen and a citizen will have to be a coward and his mainly spirit would be dead as death. The above version goes contrary to the law of self-defence and compels the accused who has acted in right of private defence to remain in prison till the trial is over. Such a course brings the 'right of self-defence to be frowned upon and a citizen would be prone to run away from the danger rather than to bravely face the danger. Why? For the simple reason that he will have to be in the jail trial is over, if at all he rightly uses force in the self-defence within prescribed limit. Such a situation would be counter to the following citation: 1972 SCC (Cr) 24. "Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) - Sections 96 to 106 Right of private defence - Scope and extent. Held: When enacting Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, excepting from its penal provisions certain classes of acts done in good faith for the purpose of repelling unlawful aggression the legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage the manly spirit of self-defence amongst the citizens when faced with grave danger. The law does not require a law abiding citizen to be have like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. The right of private defence is designed to serve a special purpose and deserves to be fastened within prescribed limits. As repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. The right of private defence is designed to serve a special purpose and deserves to be fastened within prescribed limits. (Para 11)" The above citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly emphasises that the law of self defence has got be encouraged within the prescribed compass of the law and the citizen should not beheld for exercising the prescribed right; Thus the bail deserves to be granted forthwith to such an accused. Our own Gujarat High Court had been extremely keen and careful to this situation. Mr Justice T. U. Mehta while deciding Criminal Misc. application No. 479 of 1975 decided on 26-8-1975 held as under while granting the bail in a similar situation: "Now looking to the facts of this case, it is found that the accused No.1 has filed a cross complaint with regard to the very incident on which the prosecution has put reliance to prosecute him. The applicants have produced medical certificates to show that three of them were medically examined on the day of the incident and all the three of them had injuries on their persons. Under these circumstances, it is prima facie found that there was some mutual quarrel between the parties and that during the course of this quarrel deceased Bachu received injuries on his head, which proved fatal. These facts prima facie show that the applicants have got good case to put forward before the Court to escape punishment under Sec. 302 IPC. In these circumstances, I find this is a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail." The right of private defence can be looked into even at the stage of investigation and/or inquiry stage and no process can be issued against the accused. This has been held in the famous shooting case of Vadilal Panchal v. The State of Bombay, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment observes as below: AIR 1960 SC 1113 . "Criminal P.C. (1898). Ss. 200. This has been held in the famous shooting case of Vadilal Panchal v. The State of Bombay, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment observes as below: AIR 1960 SC 1113 . "Criminal P.C. (1898). Ss. 200. 202 and 203 Scheme of - 'No sufficient ground for proceeding' Scope of inquiry by Magistrate under S. 202 - Magistrate had got powers to accept plea of self defence - Supported by report of inquiry officer and statements of witnesses and to dismiss complaint without issue of process." Another hurdle, in the District Sessions Courts is that the learned Public Prosecutor in every case wants stay against the order of bail. The stay of the bail granted to an accused is prayed on the strength of the reported case of The State v. Lalji Popat1 which judgment had been delivered by his Lordship Mr Justice M.B. Shah in very extra ordinary circumstances. Lalji’s case is being misapplied and misused. Lalji's case was an extremely exceptional case and such a case would one in a blue moon wherein the Hon'ble High Court was compelled to pass the judgment in Lalji Popat's matter and cannot be applied to each and every case as is being done. As a caution Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in his book" Declining Judicial Culture and Other Essays" has said on page 8 as under: “Trust the judges but let them prove trust worthy. Granting bail to big business at midnight and quashing even investigation against Bofors give contrary signals. Beware! We shall never allow a market-friendly judiciary lest the martyrdom of judicial integrity and social commitment be the inevitable end product. " Coming to another aspect, arrest of a person does not mean that there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court is bound to probe in to the fact that the arrest had justification and whether the formalities of the arrest have been complied with or not. By keeping a cold shoulder towards the authority that has arrested a person without justifiable grounds grave injustice is caused and the illegal arrests are being wrongly justified by the refusal of the pail by the judicial courts. Kind attention is invited to: 1997 SCC (Cr) 92, Para 20 "20. By keeping a cold shoulder towards the authority that has arrested a person without justifiable grounds grave injustice is caused and the illegal arrests are being wrongly justified by the refusal of the pail by the judicial courts. Kind attention is invited to: 1997 SCC (Cr) 92, Para 20 "20. This Court in Joginder kumar v. State of U.P. (to which one of us, namely Anand, J. was a party) considered the dynamics of misuse of police power of arrest and opined (SCC p. 267, para. 20) 'No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of power to arrest is one point. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. .... No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bonafides of complaint and reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even show as to the need to effect the arrest, Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.” It may be mentioned that despite the specific directions in respect of mode of arrest as given in the above quoted case, in no case the directions are adhered by the executive and the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court are fluted with impunity. Many a times, even the illegal arrests are justified and stamped as genuine under the garb of application being premature and the investigating agency deserves and requires more time to investigate the matter. The courts, instead of condemning unfounded arrests, and giving bail to an accused reject the bail application despite the fact that there is nothing with the prosecuting agency to justify the arrest and/ or connect the accused with the crime. Such situation is calamitous and the social fibre gets contaminated and tarnished and all is not well with execution and implementation of criminal law. False notions of imaginative approach to justify the wrong arrests in order to save the condemnation of the executive agencies not only cause injustice to the arrestee but give a good certificate to the wrong doers who on that strength get fabulous awards for their misdeeds. There is a saying: "Oh God defend me from friends, from my enemies I can defend myself." Another syndrome in the name of economic offences and -draining of the economy of the nation is nothing but hollow patriotism worth nothing. There is a saying: "Oh God defend me from friends, from my enemies I can defend myself." Another syndrome in the name of economic offences and -draining of the economy of the nation is nothing but hollow patriotism worth nothing. If and when we are that patriotic to be strict in respect of bail in economic offence then why not make those offences punishable with higher quantum of punishment. The legislature has piquant liking for the economic offenders. No offence howsoever heinous is triable by higher forum of judiciary. Even an offence u/s 409 IPC is triable by a Magistrate of First Class. The offences under Customs and similar other Acts are triable by the Magistrates and when it comes to bail the bail is opposed tooth and nail under the guise of economic offence. If and when the legislature has that much national economic to be cared for them why not make the punishment serious and deterrent. When the legislature has a soft corner for the economic offenders then why should judiciary be compelled to keep the accused locked up till trial is over by refusing bail? There has to be a balance between the law and execution thereof through various agencies. Instances are not rare when the accused punishable with offences punishable with 7 years imprisonment are refused bail saying that they would repeat the commission of similar crimes or that the offence alleged against the accused is an economic offence. Then why does not the legislature rise from slumber and make the punishment for such offences severe and introduce deterrent provisions similar to S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The law of bail needs serious consideration and the judiciary deserves to be saved and spared from huge wastage of time over the disposal of colossal volume of bail application. The legislature has to take the lead. The vacillating situation has to be brought to an end. A word about so called anticipatory bail. Experience shows and examples are in galore that only the powerful and economically sound persons have benefited from this provision. The poor do not have the money to avail the luxury of the provision of 438. Whatever it be the poor has to suffer. The innocent has to go from pillar to post and get locked up till his tryst at the trial comes to an end. The poor do not have the money to avail the luxury of the provision of 438. Whatever it be the poor has to suffer. The innocent has to go from pillar to post and get locked up till his tryst at the trial comes to an end. The above submissions get support and are fortified from the report of the Law Commission in its 41st report, relevant portion of which sounds as below: "The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing sings of steady increase. Apart from false cases where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him to submit to custody, remain in prison for few days and the apply for bail. " Needless to say that even the persons charged with offences of murders and other serious offences are not only granted bail but they are adoring the chairs of Hon'ble ministers and the executive is under their thumb and the police who arrested them has to give them Guard of Honour. The politics has stooped low down to the deepest depth of degradation with no norms of honesty and decency. D.P. is very much part of India and despite being largest State in the country we need criminals on bail to rule the State which has birthplaces of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna. The land of Ram and Krishna is required to be ruled by criminals on bail and we are proud of it. Isn't all that A Conundrum? 1. 1988(2) GLR. 1073 ,